Imaginary Frienders Cut Thomas Jefferson From Texas Curriculum
James C. McKinley, Jr. writes for The New York Times about religious conservatives' rather disgusting influence on the Texas social studies curriculum. As a fiscal conservative who's socially libertarian and an atheist, I wish people wouldn't paint all conservatives with the same brush (as they do in the headline and as McKinley does in the piece). An excerpt about the Jefferson bit:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term "separation between church and state.")
managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century
I want to know how she manages to skirt around that teeny, tiny, insignificant document called the Declaration of Independence, which I've heard tell that Jefferson sort of had a hand in. There's a rumor floating around that it was part of some sort of revolution. And I guess, being Texan, she applies no significance to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Says Jefferson about this document: The bill for establishing religious freedom... I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. Ms. Dunbar sure takes a hard line with all that "reason and right" and "religious freedom" stuff. I also like the part about "replacing him" with others, as if all historical writings are interchangeable. You can't just cut out the bits you don't like. Martin Luther was a raging anti-Semite, but that doesn't make The Ninety-Five Theses any less important to the revolution against the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church.
NumberSix at March 14, 2010 1:06 AM
I concur with NumberSix. This woman's an idiot, and if her fellow conservatives don't like Jefferson, they're idiots, too.
Jefferson established, in the Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from our Creator and, implicitly, not from government. You would think an apparently God-fearing woman like Ms. Dunbar would actually LIKE that. Also, Jefferson stated that no free man shall be denied the use of arms. So, in getting rid of Jefferson, Ms. Dunbar & Co. actually capitulated to gun-grabbing leftists, in a manner of speaking.
And Ms. Dunbar and her fellow conservatives should cool her jets about the separation of church and state. This idea was something brought up in written correspondence, not the law of the land. And furthermore, since the founders appeared to intend that we should be able to worship the Creator as we please (freedom of religion), the establishment of a Christian theocracy should hopefully be unsettling to Ms. Dunbar.
mpetrie98 at March 14, 2010 1:39 AM
cool her jets = cool their jets.
mpetrie98 at March 14, 2010 1:39 AM
Thomas Aquinas: 1225-1274
John Calvin: 1509-1564
These two men were certainly referenced by writers in the 18th and 19th centuries, but their revolutions occurred a few centuries before Jefferson's. I attended a (nondenominational) Christian private school in an affluent, conservative area of the South, and we learned about all these men. Someone argues in the article that academia has always been skewed to the left, and I'm not denying any skewing, but that doesn't mean you can just replace one historical figure with another. At my school, we had to have one year of Christian studies and we learned about evolution (both biology and history). Quality education teaches from all sides.
since the founders appeared to intend that we should be able to worship the Creator as we please (freedom of religion)
You would think that freedom of religion would appeal to the religious. I like how she won't let them teach Jefferson because of the separation of church and state thing, but then includes one man whose work was mandated to be the ultimate in teaching on the Catholic faith and another man who revolted against it. The obliviousness is astounding. The government in Calvin's time was the Catholic Church. If the Protestant revolutionaries hadn't loosened its hold on the government, there would be no Protestant hold on it. I wonder how Ms. Dunbar would like having religion in the government if it wasn't her chosen religion.
NumberSix at March 14, 2010 1:52 AM
I wonder how Ms. Dunbar would like having religion in the government if it wasn't her chosen religion.
I suppose she could travel to sunny Saudi Arabia and find out.
mpetrie98 at March 14, 2010 2:15 AM
And this is why I can no longer call myself a republican.
Robert at March 14, 2010 4:20 AM
Are you sure about that? Because the Statesman had a large article on all the lies going around about this fight, and I'm pretty sure this is one of them.
momof4 at March 14, 2010 6:24 AM
Here's more, from the Durango Herald:
http://durangoherald.com/sections/Opinion/Editorial/2010/03/14/Texas_and_textbooks/
Amy Alkon at March 14, 2010 7:13 AM
Oh for fuck's sake, calm down.
Did you ever notice how the nightmares of the New York Times tend to cluster on this one Republican Christian stereotype? (But don't worry about the NYT). And here we have Amy trying to come up with yet another new name ("Imaginary Frienders") for this condescension: Years of effort haven't shown her that it's the spite of the project that ruins its product.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 14, 2010 7:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/14/imaginary_frien.html#comment-1701602">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Problem is when they lump fiscal conservatives in with the religious/social ones. I like truth-based history, not colored either by religious wishful thinking or Howard Zinn-style PC.
Amy Alkon at March 14, 2010 7:44 AM
Another thing that stands in the way of the bizarre substitution of Thomas Aquinas for Thomas Jefferson as one who inspired democratic revolutions: Aquinas earnestly defended the death penalty for heretics.
Lester Hunt at March 14, 2010 8:41 AM
I think Crid's right by pointing out that the NYT is always pushing this one, extreme stereotype. It's not legitimate to lump all conservatives into this group.
But it's also not legitimate to lump all religious conservatives into this group, which is what Amy and several commenters have done.
As a conservative/libertarian-leaning Christian, I admire Jefferson, acknowledge him as one of out founding fathers, and recognize the separation of church and state; I might draw the line in a different place than Amy, but it should be there. So not all conservative Christians fit the stereotype. I have never heard of anyone trying to "de-legitimize" Jefferson's place in history before now. I'm sure there are those who do, but they do not seem to be very common among the conservative writers that I read most frequently, even the more overtly religious ones.
As far as how we want government to act, I probably have more in common with Amy than this silly woman in Texas.
I have noticed what I think is an attempt to sow discord among those who have come together to oppose Obamacare and federal government over-reach. The article in Politico that talks about evangelical Christians not liking the Tea Party groups comes to mind. Again, I haven't heard of these people outside of establishment media.
We've got the big-government people driving our bus pedal to the metal toward a cliff. I think the NYT and other members of the establishment would like nothing better than to have us arguing about who gets the window seat on the bus.
Let's get this bus stopped then turned around, then we can start arguing about who gets the window seat (I call shotgun). And, having worked together on this, maybe we'll do so with more courtesy and respect.
LauraB at March 14, 2010 9:45 AM
"The article in Politico that talks about evangelical Christians not liking the Tea Party groups comes to mind."
Not familiar with this article, but alienating Republicans from the Tea Party groups might not be its goal; maybe it strives to drive more Democrats toward the movement.
Pirate Jo at March 14, 2010 12:29 PM
I don't think all of the conservatives mentioned in the article are as nuts as Dunbar. One of the men who voted in favor said that he wanted to teach about the violence of the Black Panthers in conjunction with the peaceful message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I think that would actually provide a more balanced view in teaching our kids that the Civil Rights Movement wasn't all peace and daisies. Any history is inherently bloody, and we shouldn't shy away from teaching about that. But when someone tries to excise an important statesman from our history, I take offense. Whatever the intent of the NYT in writing the article, the only one I thought really came off bad was Dunbar. The others sounded less extreme,.
NumberSix at March 14, 2010 1:00 PM
Good grief. I am a catholic, as in I really mean catholic, libertarian/conservative and this is one reason my kids have never been in public school. Guess who my firstborn looked up the other day just to find out who he was? Caligula. She read some very interesting things about him and decided he was a mostly sane but evil man. And that isn't the first thing she has googled and gotten an eye/earful. She knows who Thomas Aquinas is and Thomas Jefferson. None of this seems to have done any kind of damage. As she put to to me, "It's good to know all the good stuff and bad stuff. It will make me ready for when I have to get out there and live".
Oh you should have seen her face after she looked up Salvidor Dali. No really mom he ate.....
josephineMO6 at March 14, 2010 1:34 PM
The separation of Church and State from Jefferson was for there to be no State (meaning any governmental entity) compulsion (in any manner) favoring one particular religion over another and for someone to be forced to support (in any manner) something that was contrary to their opinion/belief, not that there be no religion allowed in government nor banned by the government. "The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom" was his greatest achivement according to Thomas himself, and is on his headstone (and he wrote it) "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence Of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia" . . .
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786
"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
Jay J. Hector at March 14, 2010 2:47 PM
And in case you're too lazy to read Thomas, think about this next time you think that a person should be dumped out of office because of their religious beliefs or non-belief . . .
"That, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right."
Jay J. Hector at March 14, 2010 2:58 PM
NumberSix hit on it: People have to remember the context that the Founders came from. England had a freakin' official church. The head of government and the head of state were one and the same. In that respect, it was the 18-century equivalent of Iran.
Jefferson was a bit of a rabble-rouser, but he was also the guy who prevented some of the other Founders from going squishy. Without him, the Bill of Rights might not have been adopted. Some years ago, I was in Washington and I found myself with a few hours to kill one evening. I found my way to the Jefferson Memorial (not easy in those days; you had to cross a busy street) and read the inscriptions on the inside of the dome. Holy cow! Jefferson was the real deal.
And an aside: Was Jefferson actually an atheist? I thought he was a Deist.
Cousin Dave at March 14, 2010 4:07 PM
Just be warned. Any time you put in place the mechanism to favor the religion you like, you've put in place the mechanism to favor a different one.
I ask Baptists frequently: "Want the state to recognize a church? OK, how about the Catholic Church? What's the problem? They're Christians. You can be a Catholic."
Radwaste at March 14, 2010 4:28 PM
Besides, using what appears to be a real name, you're among re the least hidey person here.
I just hate that newspaper. I hate it so much.
Crid at March 14, 2010 5:23 PM
Wrong darned thread. That was for Jody on the other one. I hate the LA Times that much... Judgment is clouded... Up is down and true is false...
Crid at March 14, 2010 6:46 PM
Jefferson is viewed by honest historians as a deist.
But, in my oppinion a deist is nothing more than an agnostic hedging their bets.
And for that matter an agnostic is nothing more than a cowardly athiest attempting to pacify the torch bearing horde of religious freaks running round the counrty.
Jefferson was a smart man. But assuming momentarily for the sake of argument he was an athiest, I doubt he'd have been stupid enough to advertise his position. It would have been both political and career suicide, and might have gotten him killed.
But then again Jefferson was also fairly outspoken, so perhaps if he had been an athiest he would have said so at some point.
lujlp at March 14, 2010 8:07 PM
I don't know, Luj; from what I've read a number of the Founders had non-mainstream religious views. It makes sense; after all, a lot of the reason they were in America was to get away from state-sanctioned religious conformity.
My understanding of Deism: It is based around the concept of universe-as-machine and God-as-clockmaker. God constructed the universe and set it into motion, but having done that, only passively observed from there. Thus, a lot of the concepts of mainstream Christianity went out the window, for instance, there is no point in praying to a God who isn't going to intervene in your life. Some of the philosophical implications are rather paradoxical.
Cousin Dave at March 14, 2010 11:04 PM
there is a reason it says 'freedom of religion' not 'freedom from religion' and people need to just quit fighting it.
ShyAsrai at March 15, 2010 2:34 AM
> people need to just quit fighting it.
Pal, without supporting rhetoric, those themselves are fightin' words in this venue.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 15, 2010 3:43 AM
ant have freedom of religion unless you also have freedom from religion ShyAsrai
You cant b free to choose a religion with out being free to refuse all others at the same time.
Why is it you religious people never get that?
lujlp at March 15, 2010 4:01 AM
There is a difference between being free to refuse religion, and demanding that government prevent you ever being exposed to it.
Once you give the government the power and authority to protect you from objectionable thoughts, you give them the same to declare your thoughts objectionable.
Why is it you anti-religious people never get that?
brian at March 15, 2010 8:00 AM
brian, it aint the anti religious folk demanding to be sheltered from objectionable material.
I dont care what you belive, I truly dont. But I do care when you start using your groundless beleifs to pass laws that effect the rest of us.
You want to belive in a shy fairt that promotes and participates in rape, incest, and underage sex? Who gives a fuck.
You want to belive that that same deity want everyone to refuse to have sex until married only once to a person of the opposite sex nd then only do it for the purposes of spwning more mindless faith drones? Who gives a fuck.
You want to start passing laws that make it illegal to buy beer on gods weekly asskissing day, or make sex between consenting adult illegal when preformed in certian positions, or use tax moeny I pay to sell a bunch of lies to children about birth control in order to push your dieties bizzar 'no sex for anyone but me' agenda? NOW I give a fuck.
ANd by 'you' I dont mean you specifically in every instance I just laid out, I mean it as a generic you as in religious people
lujlp at March 15, 2010 8:19 AM
The Constitutional freedom from any law respecting the establishment of a religion is one of my favorite fields of study. Sadly, it does not always support my bleiefs with teh clarity i would like. At any rate, I rememnber an argument with a radio talk-show guy whose witty retort to my respectful arguments against the Ten Commendments on the Courthouse steps was along the lines of, "We're a Christian nation, stop being such a baby about it. We're in the majority, get over it." I pointed out the freedom of religion clause was intended to poroect us all; he had little answer when I asked what he'd do on the day the majority of voters was Muslim... or atheist...
Mr. Teflon at March 15, 2010 11:31 AM
Brian said: "Once you give the government the power and authority to protect you from objectionable thoughts, you give them the same to declare your thoughts objectionable.
Why is it you anti-religious people never get that?"
So, Brian, question for you from one anti-religious person here: how does "cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century" not fall into protection from "objectionable thoughts?" Ms. Dunbar above, and other conservatives on the TX SBOE, are changing the TX education standards, generally toward something that conforms with their, by and large, religious viewpoints. And not to attack their viewpoints, but their actions are what you seem to be against. The SBOE in TX is "adjusting" history and other subjects to shift education in TX a little more to the right. And whether they are right, wrong, or indifferent, the point is that what they are doing is what you find objectionable.
Separation of church and state does not mean that the government, at whatever level, prevents citizens from hearing about or learning any given religion. Show me how exactly removing, say, "under god", from the pledge of allegiance would take away anything from your ability to practice your religion? Having those two words in the pledge does infringe on my ability to live life without having to invoke your (assumption) god though. And it is the same with any other government-run enterprise when religion gets introduced. If you're in the favored religion then all is great and those that are not are being unreasonable. Place yourself in the minority position for a little bit.
Gareth at March 15, 2010 3:03 PM
Gareth -
Who does Ms. Dunbar work for? The Government. The entire government education establishment is the fucking Ministry of Truth that so freaked Orwell out.
And in trying to disprove my point, you prove it. By giving the government the authority to decide what constitutes relevant historical study, you end up giving cretins like Dunbar the power to determine what ends up in the history books.
And I don't have a religion. Don't believe in religion. I'm just tired of the knee-jerk response whenever something like this comes up, as though an atheist working in the same position would never exclude someone from a history book on equally objectionable grounds.
brian at March 16, 2010 6:02 AM
And I don't have a religion. Don't believe in religion. I'm just tired of the knee-jerk response whenever something like this comes up, as though an atheist working in the same position would never exclude someone from a history book on equally objectionable grounds.
Posted by: brian
brian, when you find an example of an atheist doing something on a scale simmilar to removing the WRITTER OF THE MOTHERFUCKING DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE in an atempt to shove their religious, political, and ideological veiws on unsuspecting children please feel free to mention it and we will gladly bitch just as loudly about them.
And incedentally no athiest would ever remove a historical figure on the grounds that they werent sufficently pious
lujlp at March 16, 2010 7:25 AM
And did you seriously just imply that Jeffersons attitude twords the seperation of church and state is objectionable enough to justify witholding his historical relevence from school children?
lujlp at March 16, 2010 7:32 AM
Brian - I am missing your point.
Ok, bad assumption on my part re religion.
I was not trying to disprove your point. My take on what you wrote was that you were in agreement with the SBOE position. I seem to be in error here. I agree that giving cretins like Dunbar the authority to wire brush history, or other subjects, to their own specifications is not at all good.
Regarding an atheist in that position making similar judgments of exclusion: yep, probably would. What is objectionable in this case, to me, is the general free pass that people like Dunbar and McLeroy get. That their deeply held beliefs are a valid reason for slicing history. The assumption of validity simply because the word 'religion' is attached somewhere. If an atheist made similar exclusions based on faulty beliefs then I would feel the same way.
Gareth at March 16, 2010 7:36 AM
I saw a bumpersticker I liked ... "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church."
Mr. Teflon at March 16, 2010 11:11 AM
One good thing- at least the wing nuts on the far right are finally admitting that our founding fathers were not all a bunch of preacher ass-kissing nonthinkers- the religous rights' lies had many americans believing for years that ALL of them were devout christians.
So now they want to kick Thomas Jefferson out of history altogether, huh? Truly pathetic.
I guess the huge gap between MORALLY RIGHT and RELIGOUS ain't gettin' no smaller.
randy at March 16, 2010 4:14 PM
luj - the "objectionable grounds" are what are being used by Dunbar, as if that wasn't perfectly clear. And although I don't have references at my fingertips, there was a history text submitted by some black nationalist group that was a "black-washing" of history that mentioned none of the founding fathers, and only mentioned Lincoln in passing. It was never approved or used, but the method by which it chose to exclude historical figures was certainly objectionable.
Gareth - I'm completely opposed to allowing any small group of people to determine curriculum, and for precisely this reason. You end up with groupthink polluting the end result.
The same method of groupthink that leads to the Dunbars of the world excluding TJ is what led to Michael Bellesiles writing a book that was almost completely fabricated (Arming America).
brian at March 18, 2010 5:10 AM
From TFA.
How can this sentence be parsed without causing cognitive dissonance?
brian at March 18, 2010 5:19 AM
Leave a comment